1. Field of the Invention
Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to micro-electro-mechanical and nano-electro-mechanical systems and more specifically to an anti-stiction and lubrication for such systems.
2. Description of the Related Art
As is well-known, atomic level and microscopic level forces between device components become far more critical as devices become smaller. Micromechanical devices, such as Micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) and nano-electro-mechanical systems (NEMS), are an area where problems related to these types of forces are quite prevalent. In particular, “stiction” forces created between moving parts that come into contact with one another, either intentionally or accidentally, during operation are a common problem with micromechanical devices. Stiction-type failures occur when the interfacial attraction forces created between moving parts that come into contact with one another exceed restoring forces. As a result, the surfaces of these parts either permanently or temporarily adhere to each other, causing device failure or malfunction. Stiction forces are complex surface phenomena that generally include capillary forces, Van der Waal's forces and electrostatic attraction forces. As used herein, the term “contact” refers generally to any interaction between two surfaces and is not limited to the actual physical touching of the surfaces. Some examples of typical micromechanical devices are RF switches, optical modulators, microgears, accelerometers, worm gears, transducers, fluid nozzles, gyroscopes, and other similar devices or actuators. It should be noted that the term “MEMS device” is used hereafter to generally describe a micromechanical device, such as a conventional MEMS or NEMS devices discussed above.
The stiction issue is especially problematic in devices such as the RF switch, optical modulator, microgears, and other actuators. Various elements in these devices often interact with each other during operation at frequencies between a few hertz (Hz) and about a few gigahertz (GHz). Various analyses have shown that, without adding some form of lubrication to these types of devices to reduce stiction and wear between component surfaces, product lifetimes may range from only a few contacts to a few thousand contacts, which is generally well below a commercially viable lifetime. Consequently, one of the biggest challenges facing the MEMS and NEMS industries is the long-term reliability of contacting microstructures in the face of stiction.
Several techniques to address the stiction between two contacting surfaces have been discussed in various publications. These techniques include texturing the surfaces (e.g., micro patterning or laser patterning) to reduce the overall adhesion force by reducing the effective contact area, and selecting specific materials from which the contacting surfaces are made to lower the surface energy, reduce charging, or contact potential difference between components.
Moreover, some prior references have suggested the insertion of a “lubricant” into the region around the interacting devices to reduce the chance of stiction-related failures. Such a lubricant often times is in a solid or liquid state, depending on the properties of the material, and the temperature and pressure or environment in which the lubricant is placed. In general, the terms a “solid” lubricant or a “liquid” lubricant is a lubricant that is in a solid or liquid state under ambient conditions, which is typically defined as room temperate and atmospheric pressure. Some prior art references describe a lubricant as being in a “vapor” state. These references use of the term vapor phase lubricant to generally describe a mixture of components that contain a carrier gas (e.g., nitrogen) and a vaporized second component that is a solid or liquid at temperatures and pressures near ambient conditions (e.g., STP). In most conventional applications the solid or liquid lubricant remains in a solid or liquid state at temperatures much higher than room temperature and pressures much lower than atmospheric pressure conditions.
Examples of typical lubricants that are solid or liquid at ambient conditions and temperatures well above ambient temperature can be found in reference such as U.S. patent. application Ser. No. 6,930,367. Such prior art lubricants include dichlordimethylsilane (“DDMS”), octadecyltrichlorsilane (“OTS”), perfluoroctyltrichlorsilane (“PFOTCS”), perfluorodecanoic acid (“PFDA”), perfluorodecyl-trichlorosilane (“FDTS”), perfluoro polyether (“PFPE”) and/or fluoroalkylsilane (“FOTS”) that are deposited on various interacting components by use of a vapor deposition process, such as atmospheric chemical vapor deposition (APCVD), low pressure chemical vapor deposition (LPCVD), plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD), or other similar deposition processes.
The technique of forming the low-surface energy organic passivation layer on the surface of a MEMS components is commonly referred to in the art as “vapor lubricant” coating. One serious draw back to using low-surface energy organic passivation layer, such as SAM coatings, is that they typically are only one monolayer thick, although coatings that are a few monolayers have also been reported. Generally, these types of coatings have a very limited usable lifetime, since they are easily damaged or displaced due to impact or wear created by the interaction of the various moving components. This is inevitably happens in MEMS devices with contacting surfaces, such as light modulator and RF switches, that are subject to frequent contact in use and a large number of contacts during the product lifetime. Without some way to reliably restore or repair the damaged coatings, stiction inevitably returns, and device failure results.
As shown in FIG. 1A, one approach for lubricating MEMS components is to provide a getter 110 within the package 100 (that includes a base 111, a lid 104, and a seal 106) in which an array of MEMS devices 108 resides. FIG. 1B illustrates one conventional package 120 that contains a MEMS device 108 and a getter 110 positioned within the head space 124 of the package 120. The package 120 also contains a package substrate 128, window 126 and spacer ring 125. These two configurations are further described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 6,843,936 and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 6,979,893, respectively. As previously indicated, these conventional devices employ some type of reversibly-absorbing getter to store the lubricant molecules in the zeolite crystals or internal volume of a micro-tube. In these types of designs, a supply of lubricant is maintained in the getter 110, and an amount of lubricant needed to lubricate the MEMS device 108 is discharged during normal operation. However, adding the reversibly absorbing getter, or reservoirs, to retain the liquid lubricants increases package size and packaging complexity and adds steps to the fabrication process, all of which increase piece-part cost as well as the overall manufacturing cost of MEMS or NEMS devices. Thus, forming a device that uses these techniques generally requires a number of labor-intensive and costly processing steps, such as mixing the getter material, applying the getter material to the device containing package, curing the getter material, conditioning or activating the getter material, and then sealing the MEMS device and the getter within the sealed package.
Particles and contamination found in our everyday atmospheric environment can have an effect on the device yield of a MEMS fabrication process and the average lifetime of a MEMS device. In an effort to prevent contamination during fabrication, the multiple process steps used to form a MEMS device are usually completed in a clean room environment. Due to the high cost required to form and maintain a clean room environment, the more steps that need to be completed in a clean room environment the more expensive the component is to make. Typically, MEMS device manufacturing processes are performed in Class 10 or better clean room environments, which can costs about $2,000 per square foot to build and $1 million a year to operate. Therefore, there is a need to create a MEMS device fabrication process reduces the number of processing steps that are required to be performed in a clean room environment.
As noted above, in an effort to isolate the MEMS components from the everyday atmospheric environment, MEMS device manufacturers typically enclose the MEMS device within a device package such that a sealed environment is formed around the MEMS components. Conventional device packaging processes commonly require the lubricating materials that are contained within the MEMS device package be exposed to high temperature excursions during the MEMS device package sealing processes, particularly wafer level hermetic packaging. Typically, conventional sealing processes, such as glass frit bonding or eutectic bonding, require that the MEMS device, lubricant materials, and other device components be heated to temperatures between about 350° C. to about 450° C. These high-bonding temperatures severely limit the type of lubricants that can be used in a device package and also cause the lubricant to break down after a prolonged period of exposure. Therefore, there is also a need for a MEMS device package fabricating process that eliminates or minimizes the exposure of lubricating material to high temperatures during the device fabrication process.